DOCSLIB.ORG

REPORTED in the COURT of SPECIAL APPEALS of MARYLAND No. 855 September Term, 2016 111

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPORTED in the COURT of SPECIAL APPEALS of MARYLAND No. 855 September Term, 2016 111 Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County Case No. 17-C-15-020318 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 855 September Term, 2016 ______________________________________ 111 SCHERR LANE, LLC, ET AL. v. TRIANGLE GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL. ______________________________________ Eyler, Deborah S., Beachley, Shaw Geter, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J. ______________________________________ Filed: June 29, 2017 In 2013, a commercial property at 111 Scherr Lane in Grasonville (“the Property”) was sold at foreclosure to 111 Scherr Lane, LLC (“the LLC”), the owner of the Property, and Edward Gills, the sole member of the LLC, the appellants. Thereafter, in the District Court of Maryland for Queen Anne’s County, two actions for replevin were filed against the LLC and Gills to recover personal property stored at the Property. One action was filed by appellee TECO, Inc. (“TECO”), an electrical contracting company owned by the prior owners of the Property and their family members; and the other was filed by appellee Triangle General Contractors, Inc. (“Triangle”), a lessee of the prior owners.1 The cases were consolidated for trial and the District Court granted writs of replevin in favor of TECO and Triangle. After the writs were executed, resulting in the recovery of some, but not all, of the appellees’ property, the cases were converted to actions for detinue and transferred to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County. The circuit court bifurcated the claims, which were separately tried to the court. In TECO’s case, the court entered a final judgment of possession in its favor for property recovered under the writ and for certain property that had not been recovered; and entered judgment in TECO’s favor for $9,856.40 for the value of other property that was not recovered. The judgment was entered against the LLC and Gills, jointly and severally. In Triangle’s case, the court issued a judgment of possession in favor of Triangle for 1 One suit also named Paul Cohen, a substitute trustee who foreclosed upon the deed of trust on the Property, as a defendant. Cohen has no interest in the Property, however, and is not an appellant. property recovered under the writ and entered a judgment against the LLC for $59,119 for items not recovered. Gills and the LLC noted this appeal, presenting five questions for review, which we have rephrased and reordered: I. Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion by determining that the personal property had not been abandoned? II. Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion by entering judgments for possession and money judgments in detinue for personal property that was not in the possession of Gills and the LLC when the replevin action was commenced? III. Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion by awarding damages in favor of Triangle based upon the replacement value, instead of the market value, of the personal property? IV. Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion by entering judgments for possession and for damages against Gills and the LLC for property that was listed as recovered on the schedule of replevied items? V. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by entering judgment against Gills personally for actions he took on behalf of the LLC? For the following reasons, we answer these questions in the negative and shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The Property consists of a fenced, commercial lot improved with a modular home. In 2004, Josiah Tice (“J. Tice”) and Joan Tice, his wife, purchased the Property. They did not live on the Property, but used it to store equipment for TECO, a family-owned electrical contracting business. Dennis Jay Tice (“D. Tice”), their son, is an owner and -2- the general manager of TECO. TECO’s equipment was stored in seven trailers parked on the Property. In late 2006 or early 2007, J. Tice entered into a verbal lease agreement with Jack Leone on behalf of his company, Triangle. Pursuant to that agreement, Triangle began storing its contracting supplies in two trailers parked on the Property and paying $50 per month in rent to J. Tice. On July 16, 2013, substitute trustees on an indemnity deed of trust securing the elder Tice’s mortgage on the Property filed an order to docket foreclosure in the circuit court. Two months later, on September 17, 2013, the Property was sold at a foreclosure sale to Gills, for $94,000. J. Tice and D. Tice were present at the foreclosure sale, having hoped to purchase it on behalf of TECO. Gills planned to use the Property in connection with his seafood business. After the foreclosure sale, he contacted members of the Tice family several times and asked them to remove their belongings from the Property. At that time, Gills was unaware that any of the trailers belonged to Triangle. The foreclosure sale was ratified on December 13, 2013. On February 5, 2014, Gills went to settlement, having assigned the contract of sale to his wholly-owned LLC. A substitute trustee’s deed was executed that day conveying the Property to the LLC. Thereafter, Gills padlocked the gates to the Property and posted “No Trespassing” signs. Five days later, on February 10, 2014, Gills wrote to J. Tice as follows: I am writing this letter to inform you that you have 10 days to remove your stuff from [the Property]. The [P]roperty is now legally owned by my LLC. The courts [sic] ratification took place weeks ago. I have talked to -3- you by phone on several occasions to no avail. I need to move on with my plans for the [P]roperty. I will dispose of the stuff if you have not removed it within 10 days of the writing of this letter. To access the [P]roperty you must call [me] at [phone number] anytime. I am close and can be there in a moment. Thank you, Ed Gills, for [the LLC] In the days that followed, D. Tice, along with TECO employees, went to the Property several times to remove the TECO equipment stored there. He brought with him a trailer and a skid steer.2 According to D. Tice, two snowstorms and a rain storm made it impossible for him to remove all of TECO’s personal property within the ten-day period imposed by Gills. On Friday, February 20, 2014, Gills told D. Tice that he could enter the Property a final time the following day to remove the trailer and the skid steer, but that “everything else was his [i.e., Gills’s] and [D. Tice] couldn’t have it.” On Saturday, February 21, 2014, D. Tice went to the Property. Gills was present, along with the Sheriff, and permitted D. Tice to take the two items, but nothing else. At that time, the seven TECO-owned trailers remained on the Property, as did some of their contents. Meanwhile, Leone was still unaware that the Property had been foreclosed upon. He continued to pay $50 per month in rent. On March 12, 2014, J. Tice contacted Leone, who was in Florida, and told him that the Property had changed ownership. Leone immediately called Gills to inquire about retrieving Triangle’s personal property. Gills told Leone that Triangle’s trailers and the equipment inside them now belonged to him (Gills). 2 A skid steer is a 4-wheel vehicle with loading arms that can be used to move heavy objects. -4- A. District Court Proceedings on Replevin Actions More than two months later, on June 2, 2014, Triangle filed an action for replevin against Gills, the LLC, and the substitute trustee in the District Court seeking return of its personal property and damages of $25,000. It alleged that two trailers—a 1986 Williams Office trailer (“Williams Trailer”) and a 1988 Strick trailer (“T-44 Trailer”)—belonging to Triangle were stored on the Property and that “approximately ninety (90) items or pieces of construction equipment” were stored in the trailers. Triangle attached to its complaint a four-page handwritten inventory of the contents of the T-44 Trailer. On June 26, 2014, TECO filed an action for replevin against Gills and the LLC in the District Court seeking return of its personal property and damages of $29,500. It alleged that TECO owned “approximately 200 items of personal property . stored in trailers” on the Property.3 TECO attached as an exhibit to its complaint a list of assets stored on the Property, including “7 . Box Trailers and their contents.” The cases were consolidated for trial on September 26, 2014. In TECO’s case, J. Tice testified consistent with the above stated facts. D. Tice testified that the seven TECO trailers had been on the Property since 2006/2007. The trailers contained various electrical supplies and tools, many of which had been acquired in 1998 when TECO purchased the assets of Simpson Electrical Co., Inc. A copy of the Bill of Sale reflecting that acquisition was introduced into evidence. D. Tice had marked with asterisks the 3 J. Tice also was named as a plaintiff. The complaint alleged that J. Tice owned a 1980 Line Truck and a 1954 Antique Chevrolet Truck that were stored on the Property. No evidence about these items was produced at the replevin hearing or in the subsequent detinue action in the circuit court and J. Tice is not an appellee in this Court. -5- items on the list that he knew were on the Property as of February 20, 2014. Those items included the seven trailers, a forklift, and various tools.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fairborn Municipal Court Small Claims Division 1148
    FAIRBORN MUNICIPAL COURT SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 1148 KAUFFMAN AVE FAIRBORN, OHIO 45324 937-754-3044 www.fairbornmunicipalcourt.us SMALL CLAIM’S INFORMATION PACKET NOTE: Please be sure to provide the appropriate copies: The court will keep the original and you will need a copy for each defendant and a copy for yourself. 1. PARTIES The individual or corporation who initiates an action is known as the PLAINTIFF. The individual or corporation against whom an action is brought is known as the DEFENDANT. Anyone may file a claim, however, a minor under the age of 18 must bring an action through his parent or legal guardian and a corporation must bring an action through an attorney at law, an officer, or a salaried employee. An officer or salaried employee of a corporation will not be allowed to engage in cross-examination, argument, or other acts of advocacy. Special care and attention should be given when filing against a business or other organization to determine whether or not it is INCORPORATED. If the business is incorporated you must name the exact corporate title of your defendant. One method of determining whether an organization is incorporated is by contacting the Secretary of State Corporations Section (1-877-767-6446 OR AT SECRETARY OF STATE WEBSITE AT www.sos.state.oh.us/) to see if your defendant is listed. If the business is not incorporated, you must determine the owner or owners name (s), then file the complaint against the owners doing business as the name of the business (example: John Doe dba John Doe’s Plumbing).
    [Show full text]
  • Sniadach, the Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B
    Boston College Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Issue 3 Number 3 2-1-1973 Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B. McDonnell Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Julian B. McDonnell, Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism?, 14 B.C.L. Rev. 437 (1973), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol14/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SNIADACH, THE REPLEVIN CASES AND SELF-HELP REPOSSESSION-DUE PROCESS TOKENISM? JULIAN B. MCDONNELL* Last term, a divided United States Supreme Court invalidated the replevin statutes of Pennsylvania and Florida. In Fuentes v. Shevinl and Parham v. Cortese' (the Replevin Cases), the Court held these statutes unconstitutional insofar as they authorized repossession of collateral through state officials before the debtor was notified of the attempted repossession and accorded an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the creditor's claim. The Replevin Cases involved typical consumer purchases of household pods,' and accordingly raised new questions about the basic relationship between secured creditors and consumer debtors—a relationship upon which our consumer credit economy is based. Creditors have traditionally regarded the right to immediate repossession of collateral after determining the debtor to be in default as the essence of personal property security arrange- ments,' and their standard-form security agreements typically spell out this right.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Right of Privacy
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Issue 4 - October 1962 Article 4 10-1962 Defamation and the Right of Privacy John W. Wade, Dean Vanderbilt Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Privacy Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John W. Wade, Dean, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 1093 (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defamation and the Right of Privacy JOHN W. WADE* In this article Dean Wade discusses the scope of the tort of un- warranted invasion of the right of privacy, comparing and contrasting it with the tort of defamation. He observes that the action for invasion of the right of privacy may come to supplant the action for defamation and that this development should be welcomed by the courts and writers. Finally, he concludes that the whole law of privacy may someday be- come a part of the larger, more comprehensive tort of intentional in- fliction of mental suffering. I. INTRODUOTMON The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions for Filing an Emergency Replevin Case
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN EMERGENCY REPLEVIN CASE The Replevin action is used for resolving civil disputes involving personal property valued up to$15,000.00 (excluding court costs, interest and/or attorney’s fees, if applicable). This process allows an individual to recover their property from another person who refuses to return the property to the owner. Before filing your complaint, you must know where the property is located. You should attempt to get the full proper name and address of the party/parties you want to sue. You will need to know the proper legal name for the business, as well as the proper owners and their addresses. If you wish to sue a corporation, you need to identify the name and address of a corporate representative who is available to accept service of legal papers. This information can be obtained from the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The website for the secretary of state is www.sunbiz.org. Once you are prepared to file your case, you should complete a Replevin complaint form, supported by invoices or other evidence of legal right to possession of the property in question. You will need to provide one (1) copy of each for the court, plus one (1) copy for each defendant. An “Affidavit in Support of Emergency Replevin” must also be filled out at the time you file the complaint. The urgent nature of the emergency replevin requires that a bond be filed. This is collected as “good faith” money to ensure that the property in question can be repaired, if damaged; or replaced, if destroyed.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Process, Replevin, and Summary Remedies: What Sniadach Wrought
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Spring 1973 Article 6 1973 Due Process, Replevin, and Summary Remedies: What Sniadach Wrought Richard M. Ashton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Richard M. Ashton, Due Process, Replevin, and Summary Remedies: What Sniadach Wrought, 22 Cath. U. L. Rev. 667 (1973). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol22/iss3/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19731 Death Penalty they are more the result of personal convictions than the impartial applica- tion of legal principles. The majority carefully constructed a bridge from the preceding cases to their present decision, but there is no escaping the fact that their decision represents a rather radical shift from previous considera- tions of capital punishment. Indeed, the strength of the majority opinions lies not in their case law, but in their statistics of infrequent and uneven use of the death penalty, statistics which the majority themselves admit are not 2 conclusive. 9 It is generally considered a judicial sin for judges to wander too boldly away from the realm of legal principles and into the field of social policy making. But when judges are called upon to apply such rules as "the evolv- ing standards of decency" their decisions are naturally vulnerable to such criticism. Regardless of its manner, the fact remains that the Furman de- cision was made.
    [Show full text]
  • Certification of Readiness for Arbitration
    : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : : NO. ARB. NO._______________ Defendant(s) : CERTIFICATE OF READINESS FOR ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS I/We request the Court Administrator to appoint arbitrators and fix the date and time of hearing and hereby certify that (1) the pleadings are closed; (2) all discovery and medical examinations have been completed; (3) all depositions for use at the hearing have been taken or are scheduled to be taken no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this certification; (4) it is understood that no discovery, medical examinations or depositions for use at the arbitration hearing can be taken thereafter, except by leave of court for good cause shown; (5) the parties have discussed submitting this matter to the Berks County Bar Association Civil Dispute Resolution Program or a comparable program and have either: Scheduled a mediation/arbitration; Been unsuccessful in resolving the case through mediation/arbitration; or, Rejected submission of the matter to a dispute resolution program after good faith discussions; and (6) the case is ready for arbitration. A. Presentation by Plaintiff(s) hours Automobile Negligence Automobile Negligence Signature of Plaintiff(s) Counsel Breach of Contract Breach of Contract Presentation by Defendant(s) hours Medical Malpractice Name of Plaintiff(s) Counsel Products Liability Replevin Actions TOTAL TIME REQUIRED: hours Slip and Fall Defamation Mailing Address Mechanic’s Liens
    [Show full text]
  • Small Claims Replevin – for Property
    SMALL CLAIMS REPLEVIN – FOR PROPERTY An action for replevin may be brought in small claims court when the value of the property does not exceed $8,000.00 and the following fees are paid. 1. $1000.00 or less - $130.00 Filing Fee which includes the Replevin fee 2. $1001.00 - $2500.00 - $175.00 Filing Fee + $85.00 Replevin fee 3. $2501.00-$8000.00 - $300.00 Filing Fee + $85.00 Replevin fee It is recommended that prior to filing suit, you contact the other party in an attempt to reach a solution to your dispute. If you are not sure that you have a valid legal claim against the other party, you may need to seek the advice of an attorney. TO FILE A CLAIM Contact the Clerk of the County Court where the: Property sought to be replevied is located Contract was signed Defendant resides Cause of action occurred Forms for filing a complaint in Citrus County are available from the Clerk of the Circuit Court at either the Inverness location or online at http://www.citrusclerk.org . Claims can be filed by or against an individual, business, or corporation. The exact legal name, complete address and phone number of the defendant is required. In the case of a business, this information may be obtained from the City or County Occupational License Department. A summons fee of $10.00 per person to process and $7.00 for the Clerk of the Court to issue is due at the time of filing for a total of $17.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts a Guide to Resources in the Law Library
    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2001-2021, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2021 Edition Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Section 1: Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts ............................................................................................................... 4 Table 1: No Fault Approach........................................................................... 20 Figure 1: Substituted Complaint .................................................................... 22 Figure 2: Amendment to first count of plaintiff’s complaint ............................... 25 See Also: Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut Replevin in Connecticut Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations, Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit [email protected] Breach of Promise to Marry – 1 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity, and currency of any resource cited in this research guide. View our other research guides at https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm This guide links to advance
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 37 Issue 4 Issue 4 - Symposium: The Winds of Change in Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning Article 5 Law 5-1984 Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society Douglas I. Brandon Melinda L. Cooper Jeremy H. Greshin Alvin L. Harris James M. Head, Jr. See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Douglas I. Brandon; Melinda L. Cooper; Jeremy H. Greshin; Alvin L. Harris; James M. Head, Jr.; Keith R. Jacques; and Lea Wiggins, Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society, 37 Vanderbilt Law Review 845 (1984) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol37/iss4/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society Authors Douglas I. Brandon; Melinda L. Cooper; Jeremy H. Greshin; Alvin L. Harris; James M. Head, Jr.; Keith R. Jacques; and Lea Wiggins This symposium is available in Vanderbilt Law Review: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol37/iss4/5 SPECIAL PROJECT Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society - I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 849 II. -.TORT ..... ..................................... 852 A. Introduction .............................. 852 B. PersonalInterests and Self-Help Privileges.. 854 1. Bodily Harm ........................... 854 2. Reputation ............................ 855 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Packet R4-15 Replevin Complaint Government Entity
    MICHELLE R. MILLER CLERK & COMPTROLLER ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SELF-SERVICE CENTER Department: Small Claims Packet Packet #R4-15: Replevins Complaint FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY/ WEAPON FROM A GOVERNMENT ENTITY The Self Service Center Packet ("Packet") you are purchasing is hereby deemed a license for the purchaser. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Packet not in accordance with the terms delineated herein is expressly prohibited. NonRefundable MICHELLE R. MILLER CLERK & COMPTROLLER ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA County Civil division 250 N.W. Country Club Drive Port Saint Lucie, Florida 34986 (772) 785-5880 REPLEVIN INFORMATION (for return of personal property taken by a government entity) These procedures are to be used by any person seeking the return of personal property (including weapons) taken by a government entity for purposes other than for a criminal investigation, as an incident to arrest, pursuant to a search warrant, or any other seizure for which the Florida Statutes provide a specific procedure for return. This Statement of Claim for Replevin is for use by those who seek return of personal property taken for other purposes, such as “safekeeping”, and for which the Florida Statutes provide no procedures. JURISDICTION - A replevin complaint must be filed in the Court which holds jurisdiction based upon the value of the property sought to be replevied. When property consists of several articles, the property may not be divided to give jurisdiction to the Small Claims Court. VENUE – A replevin action must be brought in the county where the property sought is located, where the defendant is located or where the cause of action occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • English/Vietnamese Legal Glossary
    English/Vietnamese Legal Glossary Translated from English into Vietnamese by Kim Ryan, Esq. Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento 720 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 874-6867 Fax: (916) 874-8229 www.saccourt.com 2005 Disclaimer The Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Court"), has prepared this Legal Glossary. The Court cannot guarantee that the translations contained therein are completely accurate, although reasonable attempts were made to achieve this goal. This glossary is to be used for general reference purposes only, should be considered a "work- in-progress," and is not intended to provide legal advice. This glossary is not intended to be used as a study guide for purposes of passing California court interpreter certification examinations, as some terminology might differ when used in specific context. Neither the Administrative Office of the Courts, nor the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, nor any of its officials or employees assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy of these translations. For more information or comments, please contact Ms. Elaine Flores, Administrative Services Officer II of the Court, at (916) 874-8663 or via e-mail at [email protected]. 1203.03 PC MOTION - Request to cancel, Thænh nguyeän 1203.03 Hình Luaät. modify, change or terminate probation. 1203.4 PC MOTION - Request to take back Thænh nguyeän 1203.04 Hình Luaät. guilty plea or set aside a guilty verdict, and dismiss the accusations or information. (Made after probation has either terminated or defendant was discharged from probation prior to termination.) 170.6 PC MOTION - Request to disqualify Thænh nguyeän 170.6 Hình Luaät.
    [Show full text]
  • Regular Claims Brochure.Pdf
    YOUR GUIDE TO THE REGULAR CLAIMS COURT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS The Judiciary State of Hawai‘i District Court of the First Circuit This Guide is provided to you to give general information about the procedures used in District Court. However, you should understand that the District Court staff is not permitted to give legal advice to any party and does not draft legal documents for litigants. Anyone requiring such services should consult an attorney licensed to practice law in Hawai‘i. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require an accommodation or assistance, please contact the District Court Administration Office at PHONE NO. 538-5121, FAX 538-5233, or TTY 539-4853. WHAT IS REGULAR CLAIMS DIVISION? It is a division of the District Court in which certain types of claims between two or more parties are decided, by a judge not a jury, in a proceeding known as a “civil action”. Various types of claims include: assumpsit (breach of contract), tort, summary possession, and replevin, as well as other proceedings designated by law. Legal requirements and procedures governing the Regular Claims Division are set forth in the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, the Rules of the District Court and the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure. WHO ARE THE PARTIES? A person who files a claim is called the plaintiff and a person against whom a claim is filed is called the defendant. CAN A PARTY BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY? YES. An attorney may represent either party. However, all corporations must be represented by an attorney. Page 1 WHAT TYPES OF CASES CAN BE FILED IN THE REGULAR CLAIMS DIVISION? The Regular Claims Division handles all civil actions in which the debt, damages, or value of property claimed does not exceed $40,000, except cases involving summary possession or ejectment, for which no monetary limit applies.
    [Show full text]